Subject:
|
Re: Gay Marriage
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Sat, 19 Jun 2004 05:52:11 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
2797 times
|
| |
|
|
| |
| |
If it is your point that government shouldn’t respect marriage, why can’t
you respect the notion that marriage is the union of 1 man and 1 women?
|
I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an
organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see
marriage stricken from government entirely and left to religious institutions
that can define it and limit it within their jurisdiction however they want.
I’m not offended by some church not performing gay marriage, or allowing gay
pastors, or whatever...it’s none of my business. But the law is.
|
The issue that I see is that the government (at least, the US federal one) does
not recognize any other association for the purposes of financial gain. You
can’t tell me that the institution of marrage is sacredly between 1 man/ 1
woman, for the rest of their lifes, when Brittany Spears is getting married &
divorced in a day...I think that the institution of marrage as a religous
function is fine. I have severe issues with the government not moving towards
all civic marrages being called something else, with the rules being without
bias. (read civic unions from the government for any grouping that is in a
sexual, physical, emotional, supportive arrangement). If a insurance company
doesn’t like it, then too bad, they can cover them all like dependants are now
(you have 14 s/o’s? And they all Smoke? that’ll be $140 000 / year for your
health insurance, thank you...based on our standard rate of $10 000/ s/o). You
want to get married in a Catholic church? Guess what? You better be
unmarried, be a man marrying a woman ect...If there are financial advantages to
a marrage(civic union) (as there are currently), then it should be open to any
grouping that is legal. (currently defined as 2...but that is because poligamy
is rarer than being gay)
I think what is needed is a shift from the government using the word marrage at
all. Use something else (lawful relationship, civic relationship, blue chease
dip...I don’t care) to define the legal relationship within a group, and leave
the word marrage to the churchs. Therefore, from now forward, I would be in a
blue chease dip :) with my wife, not married to her (we were married in a civic
cerimony, not at a church). If we wanted to be married, we would go to my handy
church and get married (1).
James Powell
(1) Oh wait. I don’t have a handy church. Doesn’t go well with my uniform at
all. Being the Religous Society of Friends & all that...
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
 | | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I agree with everything James wrote, but I think the truly beneficial course of action is for the government to get out of the business of certifying certain interpersonal contracts as having special value. The People should be free to (...) (20 years ago, 19-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
Message is in Reply To:
| | Re: Gay Marriage
|
| (...) I knew that. What I don't know is why. Why are you opposed to those in particular? (...) I can absolutely respect yor right to believe that and even to belong to an organization that believes that, such as a church. I would rather see marriage (...) (20 years ago, 18-Jun-04, to lugnet.off-topic.debate, FTX)
|
218 Messages in This Thread:
(Inline display suppressed due to large size. Click Dots below to view.)
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
